Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35455023›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Local Corticosteroid Injections versus Surgical Carpal Tunnel Release for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Luise Schäfer, Nicola Maffulli, Alice Baroncini, Jörg Eschweiler, Frank Hildebrand, Filippo Migliorini

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Use of Iontophoresis with Corticosteroid in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Luise SchäferDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Nicola MaffulliDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081 Baronissi, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5327-3702
Alice BaronciniDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074 Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4383-3470
Jörg EschweilerDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Frank HildebrandDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074 Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7220-1221
RWTH Aachen University · DEUniversity of Salerno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common entrapment neuropathy. This meta-analysis compared local steroid injections (LSIs) versus carpal tunnel release (CTR) for the management of CTS. Neurophysiological parameters, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the complication rate were investigated. We hypothesized that LSIs may represent an effective and safe alternative to surgical management. Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. All the clinical investigations comparing LSIs versus CTR for carpal tunnel syndrome were accessed. In March 2022, the following databases were accessed: Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. No time constrains were used for the search. The risk of bias and statistical analyses were conducted using the Review Manager Software 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). Results: Data from 1096 procedures were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 12.3 (1 to 58) months. The mean age of the patients was 51.1 ± 4.6. Nocturnal paraesthesia (p < 0.0001) and visual analogue scale (p < 0.0001) were greater in the LSIs cohort. No difference was found in the functional (p = 0.2) and symptom (p = 0.4) subscales of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), median nerve distal motor latency (p = 0.9), median nerve motor amplitude (p = 0.7), median nerve sensory conduction velocity (p = 0.4), or median nerve sensory amplitude (p = 0.3). No difference was found in terms of minor complications (p = 0.9). No major complications were observed within the duration of follow-up. Conclusion: Both CTR and LSIs were effective and feasible in reducing symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome. Though LSIs led to greater pain relief, this superiority was not permanent. Irrespective of the severity of the symptoms, current evidence suggests that a cycle of LSIs may be considered in patients with CTS. However, patients must be aware that LSIs may not be the definitive therapy, and CTR should be recommended.

Indexed as

carpal tunnel releasecarpal tunnel syndromesteroid injections

Identifiers

PMID35455023
PMCPMC9026554
OpenAlexW4224317122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.